Today's Left: Socialist Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

The Socialist Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

 by Richard Rothschild 

 “Social Justice” dispenses with real liberty and justice in order to enforce a socialist ideal.

In my previous article on “Social Justice”, I began to expose the “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.”  I am referring to noble sounding, but ill-conceived government initiatives that insidiously displace individual rights and freedoms with collectivist goals.   This can be expected as evidenced by the fact the insignia for the Fabian Socialists is a wolf-in-sheep’s clothing.

Certainly, everyone wants “justice”.   Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with the words, “with liberty and justice for all.”  

However, the mischief begins when the word “SOCIAL” is inserted in front of the word, “JUSTICE”.

America was founded on the concept of liberty and justice for each and every individual, and our declaration begins with the premise that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Although we are created equal, there are no guarantees of equal economic outcomes under our free enterprise form of economy and government.  Find a country where everyone is economically “equal”, and I’ll show you a government where nobody has any freedom.

The Social Justice movement works from the basic premise that global free-market capitalism is “unsustainable,” and is the source of all evil because it does not lead to equal outcomes.

I know what you’re thinking, whoa commissioner, you had me until then…  but it sounds a little over the top to me.   You want evidence.

Okay, let’s start with the various definitions of social justice that seek a form of egalitarianism.  i.e. Equal outcomes for all.

Next we have Mr. Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.   Transform into what?

Have you ever seen the Common Core Transformative Matrix?   Of course, you should be asking the question… transform our students from what into what?  Well, it looks somewhat like a four leaf clover.   The topmost leaf has the destination.

Want to know what it says? I’ll give you some hints.  It doesn’t say “God”.  It doesn’t say, “The Constitution.”  It doesn’t say, “America.”

It says, “Global Citizen.”

So what’s a Global Citizen?  It is a euphemism for a godless government-state citizen that places the collective above liberty; above free-enterprise; and above God.  It targets vulnerable children that are not yet convicted to the principles of individual liberty and unalienable God-given rights.

Don’t laugh.  It’s happening as we speak.  I know as a fact that an exercise called the “Privilege Walk” is being taught throughout our colleges, and within local public schools.  Students are lined up side by side and asked a series of 25 race-baiting and subtle but anti-Judeo/Christian questions that go something like this:

If you are a white male, take one step forward.

If schools are closed during holidays that align with your religion, step forward.

If you are a minority, take a step backward.

If your parents do not have a college degree, take a step backward.

In the rotting carcass of failed progressive-left federal education doctrine, class envy, anti-white bias, anti-achievement exercises are presented as a means of promoting Social Justice.  In reality, the Privilege walk is little more than a classic anti-white male, anti-capitalist exercise, designed to evoke negative emotions against those that have enjoyed individual success.   As Obama said, “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.”  If you own a successful business, you should bend the knee and pay homage to the collective and your government.

It is classic Marxist class warfare… subtle but effective.

Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, perfectly indicts this mentality, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.  Those that deny individual rights cannot claim to be defender of minorities.”    Yet, that is exactly what the Social justice movement does.   It strips individuals of self-identity and treats them as members of a victim-class.  This is called “Identity Politics.”

If you’re lucky enough to belong to a group that is in political vogue with politicians, you may reap government benefits, or even a college admission.

If you belong to the wrong group, which usually consists of either Caucasian males, or business owners, you’re in trouble.  Supporters of free-market capitalism are “unsustainable.”

So go ahead… Take the Privilege Walk, and feel guilty.

Fighting The Cromnibus Spin

Fighting The Cromnibus Spin

Cromnibus: Last week, Congress voted to pass the $1.1 trillion cromnibus bill (by 219-206 in the House and a cloture vote of 77-19 in the Senate). House Republican Leadership, working closely with the White House, managed to gain enough support for this government-inflating spending package that does nothing at all to combat the President’s unlawful amnesty actions. In the aftermath of final passage, many in the establishment are seeking political cover for their bad vote by putting forth a series of senseless and, in many cases, simply false narratives.

CLAIM: The President’s amnesty actions are not in the form of an Executive Order, therefore Congress cannot defund them.

This is not true. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has issued an official Directive to implement the President’s new policy, instructing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and several other agencies to ignore the law. The services of these agencies are under the control of congressional appropriations. The House is completely empowered to restrict DHS’s amnesty initiatives; it simply chose not to last week. 

For any who doubt that the administration is moving ahead with the president’s policy, DHS is already working on hiring 1,000 new full-time employees at an “operational center” in Virginia to process applications and issue work permits to the 4-5 million illegal aliens who qualify – and “many of the openings were posted the day after” Obama’s speech. So Congress needs to act immediately if it wants to prevent DHS from using any funds that have already been appropriated to implement the president’s plan.

CLAIM: The cromnibus stopped the President from implementing executive amnesty.

This is a lie. This is precisely what the bill did not do. While DHS is only funded through February 27^th in the cromnibus, there was no rider attached to prevent the President from granting unilateral, unlawful amnesty. Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) is also mistaken when she says this bill “ended funding for CIS [Citizenship and Immigration Services], which is the agency that would be in control of [implementing amnesty].” USCIS has no restraints placed on it by this cromnibus, and is growing its capacity exponentially to begin the process of granting quasi-legal status to illegal immigrants. Executive amnesty is being enacted now. Congress has done nothing to stop it.

CLAIM: The cuts to Obamacare were strong enough to merit support of this bill.

In reality, the cromnibus makes very few—and no significant—changes to parts of Obamacare. While the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) sees a $10 million cut in funding, this board is not even currently operating and is not expected to be needed until a few years—and a few more appropriations bills—from now. The board has not yet received a single appointment. These members are celebrating a miniscule reduction for a team of bureaucrats that does not yet exist.

Another provision of the spending bill reins in the risk corridor payments. However, this change only prevents the use of appropriated funds from going to compensate for insurers’ losses; it still makes room for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to dip into other government sources to bailout insurance companies if need be. A true containment of the risk corridors would insist the program operate on a budget-neutral basis, preventing taxpayer bailouts of any kind. 

These changes do not go far enough and should not be a distraction from the larger spending provisions that are operating on autopilot: the Medicaid expansion and the government exchanges subsidies.

Call to Action: Members of Congress must be held accountable for their decision to fund the President’s executive amnesty actions. The cromnibus sets up another opportunity to defund these policies in the new year. Only through continued accountability efforts and a sustained focus on the fight on the horizon will the Republican Party be encouraged to stand up to the President’s lawlessness. Voters should find out how their members voted and remind them that the new GOP majority will only be successful if it is willing to represent the interests of the people who made that majority possible.

Immigration Executive Order -- All Smoke and Mirrors

Immigration Executive Order -- All Smoke and Mirrors

The Demos' REAL "Immigration Reform" Strategy

By Mark Alexander

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington (1783)

So, the Imperial President claims that, because Republicans are not passing the immigration "reform" legislation that best suits the Democratic Party's political agenda, he is going to bypass Congress and issue an executive order (EO).

Don't believe it.

Oh, Barack Obama is going to center stage Thursday night to set up his EO play, and sign that diktat Friday in Las Vegas -- a fitting venue for a gutless gamble by a "big hat, no cattle" dude rancher. But what is the Demos' real strategy?

In leftist parlance, "immigration reform" means providing a jackpot to illegal aliens -- giving them official status so they can work and receive all associated taxpayer-subsidized services like housing, schooling and medical care. Once integrated, the second step is to provide a fast-track to citizenship. In other words, for Democrats, immigration reform means, first and foremost, seeding a large constituency.

But is Obama really attempting to give millions of illegal immigrants worker status?

In 2008, then President-elect Obama declared, "I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support." In 2009 and 2010, Obama had the benefit of Democrat Party control of both the House and Senate, however, his congressional Demos never passed an amnesty bill and thus he did not sign one.

Why?

Because he and his fellow Democrats were just pandering to Latinos; they had no intention of passing legislation to provide worker permits for five to 10 million illegal immigrants.

Why?

Because another larger and more critical Democrat voter constituency is composed of low-income Americans, whom the Left baits with class warfare rhetoric centered on issues like "living wages" and increasing the minimum wage - Blacks!

As my daughter, a university student working toward a business degree, framed this issue, "Labor inflation results in wage deflation." In other words, the Democrats really don't want to dump millions of immigrant laborers, who are willing to take low wages, onto their dependable American low-income constituency, because that will, in effect, drive wages even lower. This is a fundamental supply-and-demand equation.

Just before Democrats were shellacked during the midterm "Republican wave," Obama borrowed a line from The Gipper for a national campaign interview: "Ronald Reagan used to ask the question, 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?' In this case, are you better off than you were in six? And the answer is, the country is definitely better off than we were when I came into office." But according to BO, the problem is the American people "don't feel it," and he insisted, "The reason they don't feel it is because incomes and wages are not going up."

Of course, the reason for wage stagnation is that Obama's economic "recovery" policies have been a colossal failure. On top of that, the influx of cheap illegal immigrant labor effectively caps any increase in wages for unskilled workers.

Democrats argue raising the minimum wage will protect their low-wage constituents, but that is a fabrication. As the Congressional Budget Office made clear, artificially increasing wages will decrease employment.

The issue of immigrant labor undermining the ability of low-income earners to achieve a "living wage" is nothing new. A primary reason Abraham Lincoln did not emancipate slaves at the onset of the War Between the States is that the influx of black labor into northern markets competing for jobs held by white laborers would have undermined Lincoln's political support from the latter.

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only "to the welfare of the white race." Apparently, more than a few Latino politicos are equally disenchanted with Obama's failure to provide immigrant work permits.

So what of Obama's EO?

The Demo strategy is to craft that EO in such a way that Republicans can successfully chip away at it, primarily by defunding and de-authorizing key components of its implementation, as well as by issuing legal challenges. Thus, Democrats will receive credit from both their legal and illegal Latino constituencies for, ostensibly, attempting to provide them with nine million Permanent Residency or Employment Authorization cards. Then they can blame those "obstructionist" Republicans for blocking them.

This week, Senate Democrats, in a letter to Obama supporting his EO plan, made clear their intent to share in the political fruits of this charade.

Obama, as we've often noted, is a master of the BIG Lie, and, just like the litany of lies that he and his party used to deceive Americans into supporting ObamaCare, they are also deceiving millions of Americans into believing Democrats support both "living wages" and "immigration reform."

Apparently, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) got it right when he interrupted Obama's 2009 introduction of ObamaCare to a joint session of Congress and the nation. "You lie! You lie!" Wilson memorably yelled.

Indeed, "lack of transparency" and "the stupidity of the American voter," in the words of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, are also applicable to Obama's low-wage and Latino constituencies in regard to amnesty by EO. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that Obama constituents are too ignorant to know they're being duped -- after all, they elected him. Twice.

Not only do Democrats assume their constituents are too stupid to understand Obama's amnesty EO subterfuge, but Obama is willing to, once again, turn constitutional Rule of Law on end to accomplish this deceit.

Last week, Obama declared his intent to issue the immigration EO: "I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that if in fact Congress failed to act I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better."

Of course, "lawful authority" is whatever Obama defines it to be at a given time. He was against unlawful executive orders before he was for them.

On March 31, 2008, candidate Obama said, "I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America."

But having failed to pass immigration reform in his first two years in office when he owned the House and Senate, and then having lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, Obama repeatedly pleaded in Latino forums that he had no power to implement the changes he'd promised. Rebuffing calls that he legislate by executive order, Obama insisted, "I am not a dictator. I'm the president. ... If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. ... I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."

Obama may not have implemented his immigration policies by EO, but he certainly suspended enforcement of immigration laws with an executive order.

But by 2014, with his singular centerpiece legislation -- ObamaCare -- falling apart, and Democrats putting as much distance between him and them as possible, Obama believed the only way his party could stave off a resounding defeat in the midterm election was if he delivered Latino votes.

He began the year promising, "Where Congress isn't acting, I'll act on my own. ... I've got a pen ... and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward." In other words, when Republicans don't give Obama what he wants on immigration, he will pull an executive order end run.

Obama has broadly demonstrated his willingness to end-run our Constitution via EO, most notably his so-called "climate change" policies and his repeated rewrites of ObamaCare.

Asked about his revised position to implement amnesty by executive order, Obama regurgitated this spin: "Well, actually, my position hasn't changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. ... There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws."

Of course, that is just more constitutional obfuscation. Despite his faux devotion to our Constitution, Obama has wantonly violated his oath to "to Support and Defend" it.

Though Obama claims to be a "professor of constitutional law," a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has issued severe criticism of Obama's "über presidency," his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

According to Turley, "When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There's no license for going it alone in our system, and what he's done, is very problematic. He's told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic."

He continued:

 "What's emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. ... When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. ... Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. ... What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. ... We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. ... No one in our system can 'go it alone' -- not Congress, not the courts, and not the president."

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond "to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration," Turley responded, "This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers. ... I hope he does not get away with it."

Over on Obama's MSNBC network, even leftist commentator Lawrence O'Donnell finds the prospect of Obama's executive amnesty diktat daunting. He asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about Obama's authority to issue an EO giving work permits to millions of illegal immigrants: "No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the president's plan. ... Has the White House told you -- what is the legal justification for the president to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?"

Of course, Welch could not answer O'Donnell, because there is no such authority.

Before the midterm election, Obama declared, "Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them." Make no mistake: The American people resoundingly rejected his policies on November 4.

That notwithstanding, Obama has dismissed the election results. Perhaps he believes his immigration EO artifice will deliver enough Latino voters to Democrat candidates in 2016 to hold the presidency and regain the Senate, and somehow that will restore his "Dear Leader" status. After all, more than a million illegal immigrants were unlawfully registered to vote in the midterm election, particularly in states where Democrats have thwarted efforts to require voter IDs.

The bottom line for Republicans is that they need to drive home four points.

First, the "immigration reform" pledges by Obama and his Democrats are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left's entire "living wage" platform. But Democrats believe their low-income and Latino constituencies are too stupid to understand this ruse. Remember: "Labor inflation results in wage deflation."

Second, as Dr. Turley noted, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first. As Ronald Reagan declared, "A nation without borders is not a nation." Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called "birthright citizenship," which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution's 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind. It's not a "white thing." Essential Liberty is timeless. And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

Time to see what the incoming House and Senate Republican majorities are made of!

Gov. Jindal: 'I Don't Think the President Should Shut Down the Government'

Gov. Jindal: 'I Don't Think the President Should Shut Down the Government'

"I don't think the president should shut down the government to try to break the Constitution," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal told a flustered Chuck Todd Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." Todd had just asked Jindal, "If the president goes through with his executive action (on immigration), do you think Republicans and Capitol Hill ought to use even the power of shutting down the government to stop him from doing it?"

"Two things," Jindal responded. "I don't think the president should shut down the government to try to break the Constitution. The reality is this. I do think the---Todd interrupted: "You think that the president would be shutting down the government?" "Oh, absolutely--" Jindal said.

"And so, you do want Republicans to fight him on this, to the point that it could shut down the government," Todd interrupted.

"I don't think the president should shut down the government," Jindal repeated.

"You're twisting my question," Todd complained. "That means you want that kind of showdown."

"Let's step back and understand what we're talking about," Jindal said. "So the president said, 'I want to break the law.' He purposely said I’m going to wait till after the election, because I know it's not going to be popular to grant amnesty to millions of folks...that are here illegally. We had an election. He said his policies were on the ballot.

"He lost in red states, purple states, blue states. The American people overwhelmingly ejected and rejected his policies. Now he's saying, 'I'm still going to break the law.' Talk about arrogance. This president used to say, 'Elections have consequences.' We're talking about how can the Congress force the president to follow the law.

"I would expect even Democrats who may agree with him on substance, to say the right way to do this is to follow the Constitution, follow the law. No, we shouldn't shut down the government, but absolutely Republicans should do everything they can to force the president to follow the law.

"Let's secure the border and no, the president shouldn't shut down the government so that he can break the law."

There’s no mystery to the midterm shellacking

There’s no mystery to the midterm shellacking

By Kathleen Parker

Post election analysis falls somewhere between amusing and clueless.

In the amusing camp are Democratic strategists who intone that more Democrats would have won if only more people had voted. The gods surely blush with envy.

And of course, there’s the conventional wisdom that Democrats always suffer in midterms because they lack “intensity,” meaning they don’t care, and that presidents are always unpopular in their sixth year in office.

So much for insight.

Next we visit the clueless camp where professional pundits gather. The consensus here is that the election wasn’t a mandate for Republicans to overhaul government. I confess that I was one of these, but (mark your calendars) I was wrong. There is a difference between warning victors against the end-zone prance, as many of us did, and denying that Republicans were hired to do a job.

There’s also no denying that the midterms were a referendum on President Barack Obama. The president prefers to say they were a referendum on his policies, which is perhaps an easier pill to swallow. But Obama is his policies, which happen to rub many Republicans (and at least a few Democrats) the wrong way.

Moreover, people don’t like being insulted and misled, as many feel they have been by this administration. This is not just a feeling but a demonstrable fact, especially vis-avis the Affordable Care Act. And it’s not just the far-right fringe who object to the strategic misrepresentations along the way.

These obfuscations include telling the American people that they could keep the insurance they had if they liked it and also writing the law in such a way that the ACA’s mandate to purchase government-approved insurance was not a “tax,” despite the Internal Revenue Service’s role in policing its compliance.

The keep-your-insurance ruse is history now, but the memory still lingers in the minds of voters, who, contrary to what the Obama White House thinks, are not stupid.

There’s no dishonor – and it certainly isn’t stupid – to not understand the ACA. The then-Democratic-controlled Congress that passed the thing didn’t even understand it. I’d wager that most still don’t.

Punditry aside, there’s no mystery to the midterm shellacking.

It was a loud, clear shout-out to Congress to Just Stop It. Not only stop Obamacare, which more likely will end up being tweaked, but to stop executive overreach and disinformation to sway votes while betraying voters.

Those who feel defrauded by their own government got third-party confirmation recently when remarks by one of the ACA’s chief architects, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber – invoking the stupidity of voters and lauding the political advantage of a lack of transparency in government – went viral.

It is a beautiful thing when Truth trots out the door before Oops can catch him.

The comments were made on a panel about a year ago but were released a week after the midterms. Gruber was making the point that Obamacare never would have passed if the administration had been honest about the fact that the so-called “penalty” for noncompliance with the mandate was really a tax.

“And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing [Obamacare] to pass.” The irony is that the very thing the White House was trying to conceal (because the truth was just too complicated for regular folks), the Supreme Court essentially confirmed. Enforcement of the mandate constituted a tax, not a penalty. Thus spake Chief Justice John Roberts.

This ruling, indeed, was the reason the ACA was able to go forward, which is why so many Republicans were apoplectic with Robert’s siding with the liberals in a 5-4 ruling. In other words, Obama’s obfuscation was simultaneously revealed and rewarded by the court. And the American people were smacked with a health-system overhaul many more would have rejected had they known the truth.

Or would they? It’s hard to know what might have happened if truth had won the day. But we do know that truth squandered is trust lost.

We also know that once trust is gone, it’s very hard to restore. Over time, and not just during this administration, we have lost trust in one institution after another. But when we have lost faith in our government, we have lost faith in ourselves.

At their core, the midterms were really about restoring that trust. This, it seems, is the mandate that precedes all others and will require the good faith efforts of both Democrats and Republicans. 

Is The Man In the White House Mentally Ill?

Is The Man In the White House Mentally Ill?

By Dave Daubenmire 

I am not asking this with my tongue in my cheek. I am as serious as a judge. As I sit here and write, I am listening to Mr. Obama's press conference. Something is very wrong with this guy. He is either mentally ill or demon possessed. Either choice is a possibility. But something is definitely wrong with him. He seems somehow inhuman.

I've lived my entire life in a world of athletic competition. I understand the human emotion that is associated with winning and losing. I grew up with the opening theme of ABC's Wide World of Sports continuously playing in my head. (If I close my eyes I can hear the voice of Jim McKay bouncing around the corners of my brain.)

"Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of sports... the thrill of victory... and the agony of defeat... the human drama of athletic competition... This is "ABC's Wide World of Sports!"

The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat brings with it emotions. That is why we watch sports. We love the human drama of athletic competition. That's why we have press conferences after games. We love to hear the emotional reaction to winning and losing.

President Obama is a hollow man. He has no feelings. He feels no emotions. The human drama of competition seems to have no outward effect on him.

Can I be blunt? He got his butt kicked. Every talking head on the tube is pointing the finger at his unpopularity. "The bloom is off of the rose. It is a direct repudiation of his policies. The era of Obama is over." It is as if everyone knows it but him.

Politics is nothing more than a beauty contest, and Obama has been voted off of the island. But he acts as if he still owns the island. There seems to be no agony in his defeat. It is not normal. His emotions do not line up with reality. He is either sick, or he is possessed. I'm not laughing. I am serious.

His party rejected him. The American people rejected him. His fawning media has turned their affections in a different direction, yet he shows no emotion. I watch him on the TV. I watch him in his press conference. I watch his eyes as he responds to the media's questions. I believe he is a sick, dangerous man.

I Googled the word 'sociopath.' "A person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."

Bingo. That's him. That's the guy living the life of President of the United States.

I went a bit further and Googled "Characteristics of a Sociopath." Read it for yourself. Permit me to summarize. You recognize his/any mental illness by these traits.

-An oversized ego.

-Lying and showing manipulative behavior.

-Incapable of showing empathy.

-Lack of shame or remorse.

-Staying eerily calm in dangerous situations.

-Behaving irresponsibly or with extreme impulsivity.

-Having few close friends.

-Being charming ---but only superficially.

-Living by the pleasure principle.

-Showing disregard for societal norms.

-Having intense eyes.

The man is either sick or non-human. He does not react like a normal human being.

Consider this from the article:

"Sociopaths can be very charismatic and friendly -- because they know it will help them get what they want. "They are expert con artists and always have a secret agenda," Rosenberg said. "People are so amazed when they find that someone is a sociopath because they're so amazingly effective at blending in. They're masters of disguise. Their main tool to keep them from being discovered is a creation of an outer personality."

As M.E. Thomas described in a post for Psychology Today: "You would like me if you met me. I have the kind of smile that is common among television show characters and rare in real life, perfect in its sparkly teeth dimensions and ability to express pleasant invitation."

Reading that gives me the willies...how about you?

No emotions. Cold. Calculating. He doesn't even know that he lost. He is unaware that he has been rejected. He acts as if it is business as usual while the entire Democratic Party is wishing for a moving van out in front of the White House.

In my coaching career, I lost a lot of games. I know how it feels. I know how it makes you react. He has destroyed his party. His friends are running for cover, but he acts as if he has just won.

Sociopaths are dangerous. Some famous sociopaths in recent history include Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gazy.

You laugh at me. You ridicule what I say because I compare him to serial killers. Go ahead. Laugh. He displays all of the characteristics of the above mentioned goons. They were charismatic and likeable.

What kind of man plays golf after a young man's head is chopped off? What kind of man disappears for hours while some of his "employees" are being killed overseas? What kind of man permits a deadly disease to be freely introduced into a society? What kind of man acts as if he won when the whole world watched him lose? What kind of man believes his own lies?

President Obama is either sick or demon possessed. Red flags are everywhere we look. Will his own party stop him? Will anyone stop him? President Obama is a sick, dangerous man.

I just thought someone needed to point that out.

GOP WIN: People Have Spoken Clearly, Will Politicians Listen

GOP WIN: People Have Spoken Clearly, Will Politicians Listen

by Allan Erickson 

Well, the people have spoken, and the messages are clear: we don’t like Obama’s policies, we reject the Democrat agenda of big government, a bad economy, weak foreign policy and the politics of anger and division, and, although we are disappointed with Republicans as well, we hope they will turn the tide and work to solve problems in practical, common sense ways.

This is being called a wave election.  Republicans took control of the Senate.  They now hold 32 governorships, and they extended their presence in the House of Representatives. It would appear voters want what conservatives have offered all along:  limited government, fiscal sanity, economic freedom, personal liberty, strong foreign policy, and common sense domestic policies.

In other words, folks appear to be finished with Obama’s radical, secular progressive agenda, one that has failed monumentally on every front.

The challenge now is for Republicans to step up.

We hope Rand Paul and John McCain bury the hatchet.  We trust Republicans will stop the infighting.  Our deepest hope is Republicans and conservatives and Tea Party folks come together and agree on the two-fold brilliance of the Reagan approach:
1. DO NOT ATTACK ANYONE, ESPECIALLY THY FELLOW CONSERVATIVE
2. UNIFY AROUND A COMMON SENSE, WORKABLE PLATORM DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THE TOP CONCERNS OF THE PEOPLE

Polling shows us clearly the American people want solutions.  They want progress.  They want prosperity and security.  They want a government working for them, finally!  Here are their top concerns:

Number one: it’s the economy, hands down.  The party that deals with ObamaCare, reins in regulation, approves the Keystone Pipeline, reduces taxation, and opens opportunity so that jobs are created and prosperity flourishes, that is the party that will take the White House in 2016.

Number two:  security.  Whether it is terrorism, Ebola, foreign threats, ISIS or the border and related immigration issues, the American people are frustrated with a government that cannot seem to do anything.  The party that enhances security, addresses real threats in realistic ways, succeeds in defeating our enemies, and provides real border security is the party that will take the White House in 2016 and take control of Congress (or retain it).

Number three: the size of government, government spending, government debt, inefficient federal bureaucracy, and corruption in government.   Obviously these are monster problems that will not be solved in the next two years. However, the party that presents a clear message articulating a real set of solutions will be the party that earns the confidence of the majority of voters.

The Republicans have been handed a golden opportunity this election.  Citizens have been clear.  It is now time for Republicans to be clear, unified, consistent and effective, reaching out to those Democrats who are likewise ready to put country before party.  If that involves the President, all the better, but don’t hold your breath. 

How can you hold your elective representatives accountable?

How The GOP Can Stop Obama
By DICK MORRIS

How can you hold your elective representatives accountable?  Dick Morris outlines some things they can do and should not do.  If you agree with some or all of these, let your representatives know; call or email them!

If the Republicans win the Senate next week, to quote Hillary Clinton's remarks in another context, "what difference does it make?" With President Obama still in the White House and the Republicans short of 60 votes -- and far short of the two-thirds needed in either house to override a presidential veto -- how can GOP control of the Senate have much impact?

The answer is that it can have an enormous impact -- if Republicans play their cards right.

The key is how they handle the federal budget, legislation that requires only a simple majority under the Byrd Rule and for which the president does not have a line-item veto power.

Congress can go line by line through the budget, legislating as it goes, rolling back one after another of Obama's initiatives.

Obviously, the GOP must not overplay its hand. If it uses its power to defund ObamaCare entirely, for example, the president will predictably veto the entire budget and the stage will be set for a replay of the October 2013 shutdown of the government, with the same disastrous consequences for the GOP.

But if Republicans limit their ambitions and carefully choose their targets, they can use line-item changes to control and derail important aspects of Obama's agenda.

The key is to pick targets where public opinion is on the Republican side and not to use the budgetary power in ways that exceed public expectations. Even though a majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare, it would be an overreach to repeal it by defunding it. The process of defunding has no roots in American political memory and is susceptible to Obama's argument that the Congress must pay the bills it has incurred. And, in a fight of that magnitude, as Clinton and Obama well know, the presidential megaphone drowns out all else.

But if Republicans are more limited in their objectives, they can succeed. They could, for example:

• Use the Immigration and Customs Enforcement appropriation to overturn Obama's executive order, expected right after Election Day, to end deportations;

• Use the Health and Human Services line to defund the Independent Payment Advisory Board, dubbed the "death panel" by Sarah Palin;

• Repeal the medical device tax;

• Require release of IRS emails by appending a requirement to the budget for that wayward agency;

• Stop the Federal Election Commission from regulating Internet blogs;

• Block the Federal Communications Commission from its attempts at Internet regulation.

In these and a host of other areas, Republicans can use the budget to thwart and roll back Obama's initiatives.

None of them likely rises to the level where the president would veto the entire budget. And, were he to do so, he would have to fight on ground overwhelmingly favorable to the GOP. He would fail.

And then there is ObamaCare. With the lawsuits invalidating subsidies that go to people who did not pass through the federal exchanges likely to reach the Supreme Court, the chance for a verdict overturning this key element of the healthcare law cannot be discounted. Both Justices John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy have repeated attacked legislating from the bench, and the lawsuit asks not that they overturn ObamaCare, just that they read the Affordable Care Act and enforce it literally as it is written. If ObamaCare subsidies are overturned, Republicans can replace them with a new system of tax credits without coercion by a simple majority in the Senate (as ObamaCare itself was passed with a simple majority).

Would Obama veto a bill that restores coverage to the 10 million or so people who will have lost their insurance in the court decision? Doubtful.

MEET THE MIDTERMS’ 42 MEGA-DONORS

MEET THE MIDTERMS’ 42 MEGA-DONORS

A few dozen wealthy folks account for nearly a third of super PAC donations


by Fredreka Schouten and Christopher Schnaars


Forty-two of the nation’s super wealthy have donated nearly $200 million to super PACs to shape next week’s midterm elections, according to a USA TODAY analysis of contributions of $1 million or more.

In all, this relatively small group has provided nearly a third of the more than $615 million raised by all super PACs in the 2014 election, the analysis shows.

Liberal environmentalist Tom Steyer dominates the field, having pumped more than $73 million into these PACs. Most of his money has flowed to Next-Gen Climate Action, the super PAC he created to make climate change a priority in key races.

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has made gun control a top cause, is No. 2 at $20 million, nearly 65% of which has gone to his super PAC, Independence USA.

“This is a handful of people who are really driving this train and driving the dialogue” of the midterms, said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics. “This is a harbinger of things to come” in 2016, when the presidency is at stake.

Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they operate independently of the candidates they support, have outspent the national parties by more than $107 million through midday Tuesday, a tally by the Center for Responsive Politics shows.

“When you give money to a generic party, you don’t necessarily get to direct how the money is being spent,” said Saul Anuzis, a former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party. “I think donors are becoming more sophisticated. People are much more likely to want to decide how the money is spent.”

The analysis highlights the small number of Republican-aligned megadonors who are banding together to bankroll a handful of super PACs at the forefront of GOP efforts to win control of the Senate. Republicans need to net six seats to take the majority.

In recent weeks, six people have given both to American Crossroads, a super PAC tied to GOP strategist Karl Rove, and Ending Spending Action Fund, a super PAC created by TD Ameritrade founder J. Joe Ricketts, who wants less government spending.

The multiple givers include Ricketts and hedge funder Paul Singer, who gave $9.3 million to 10 super PACs. Nearly a third of Singer’s donations have gone to American Unity PAC, his pro-gay rights super PAC. Singer also gave a combined $5 million to Crossroads and Ending Spending.

Crossroads is one of the biggest Republican players in the midterms, spending more than $20 million — first to help mainstream Republican candidates beat back Tea Party-affiliated challengers during competitive primaries earlier this year and now blistering Democrats on the airwaves during the home stretch to Election Day.

A slew of recent polls show momentum building for a Republican takeover of the Senate.

“That investment has paid dividends,” Crossroads’ spokesman Paul Lindsay said. “The support we’ve received recently” from donors “is a sign of the progress we have made in the last two years.”

Only one woman donated more than $2 million to super PACs in this cycle: former wrestling executive Linda Mc-Mahon. She has contributed more than $2.6 million to nine groups, including Crossroads and Ending Spending.

“I think donors are becoming more sophisticated. People are much more likely to want to decide how the money is spent.” Saul Anuzis, a former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party 

Obama and National Security: A Team of Bumblers?

Obama and National Security:Team of Bumblers?

Are Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel capable for today’s new national-security challenges?

When President Obama, after months of equivocation over how to respond to the takeover of parts of Iraq and Syria by radical militants, announced in September that the United States would “lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat,” the White House swung quickly into action, sending proposed legislation to train and equip Syrian rebels to Capitol Hill that same day. Unfortunately, the White House failed to consult with the Pentagon—which would be doing most of the rolling back—on the timing or details of the announcement.

According to multiple sources, behind the scenes a few things went badly awry in the launch of Obama’s new policy. First, the Pentagon was surprised by the president’s timing, according to a senior defense official. “We didn’t know it was going to be in the speech,” he said, referring to Obama’s Sept. 10 address to the nation. Second, the White House neglected to give Pentagon lawyers a chance to revise and approve the proposed legislative language before it went to the Hill, which is considered standard practice. Staffers working for Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said they were appalled by what they saw: language so sloppy that it failed to mention adequate protections against so-called “green-on-blue” attacks by trainees on American troops, and effectively left the Defense Department liable for funding the mission against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—even though the president was telling members of Congress he didn’t need money for this new mission, since the Saudis were putting it up. “What came over would have not have been a mission the DoD could have executed,” says a senior Republican committee staffer.

The Armed Services Committee later went directly to the Pentagon and worked out new language, the White House approved it, and Obama signed the legislation as part of a new Continuing Resolution on Sept. 19. But that was hardly the first instance in recent months when the White House failed to consult with the Pentagon. The Pentagon was not given a heads-up about that letter either, according to multiple sources. “We didn’t know it was going over there, and there were significant concerns about it,” said the senior defense official. “We had these authorities to go into Iraq under the 2002 AUMF, which is what she wanted repealed. We believed the authorities were still needed.”

But it’s clear the finger-pointing between the White House and Pentagon reflects no mere technicality. Both examples cited to me by well-placed sources close to the Defense Department offer new evidence of a criticism that has dogged this administration for most of its six and a half years: that Barack Obama’s White House is so insular and tightly controlled it often avoids “outside” consultation—including with its own cabinet secretaries and agencies. That’s especially true when the issue is one of this president’s least favorite things: opening up new hostilities in foreign lands.

Indeed, the Syrian-rebel incident recalled a more famous instance of White House surprise tactics a year earlier, when after a stroll on the White House lawn with chief of staff Denis McDonough, Obama embarrassed Kerry by abruptly deciding to ask for congressional approval for bombing the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad—only hours after Kerry had publicly declared that Assad was facing imminent action.

In their recent memoirs, former defense secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta also have described the White House-centric foreign policy of the Obama administration—in Panetta’s case, a White House that he said was so “eager to rid itself of Iraq” it rejected Pentagon advice about the need for residual troops in Iraq after 2011, opening the way for ISIL. 

Gates was even more pointed, writing that “suspicion and distrust of senior military officers by senior White House officials—including the president and vice president—became a big problem for me.”

“I think this is the most insular White House national security team in recent history,” says Jim Thomas, vice president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a former senior Pentagon official, who added that the president’s most recent big decision, picking an “Ebola czar,” was “symptomatic of the problem.”.

The Ebola crisis has underscored what many of Obama’s critics—including those in his party—have been saying with increasing urgency in recent months, that the White House’s approach to national security does not instill confidence and seems more questionable than ever in the face of the muscular new challenges on the scene.

“It’s a pathetically weak team,” says one retired general who was in a senior command position, and who faults Hagel as much as Rice for some of the problems. The general said that military professionals were buzzing over Hagel’s absence from the recent public exchange between the White House and Dempsey, who in congressional testimony on Sept. 16 appeared to undercut the president’s vow to put no boots on the ground in Iraq by suggesting that “close combat advisers” might be needed. “There’s no energy, no sense that the OSD stands for anything,” says one administration official, referring to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. “It’s all coming out of the Joint Chiefs.”

“An unlikely consensus is emerging across the ideological spectrum about the war against the Islamic State: President Obama’s strategy to ‘degrade and eventually destroy’ the terrorist entity is unworkable,” the Washington Post wrote in an editorial on Sunday. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., put it Sunday on “Face the Nation,” the U.S. effort now amounts to mere “pecks at a big problem,” and allies remain baffled by the lack of a larger U.S. strategy.

While Hagel defends the status quo, Rice continues to stumble in her infrequent TV appearances and to alienate potential Hill allies – as well as the Pentagon—with what critics describe as poor outreach to Republicans and coordination of policy with the Defense Department. “Our experience has been that the DoD and Capitol Hill are often taken by surprise at same time and on same issues” by the White House, says the senior Armed Services Committee staffer.

Rice is rarely heard in public except when she very occasionally appears on the Sunday talk shows—and then more times than not, it seems, in a bumbling way. (Most recently, by saying Turkey would supply bases for strikes against ISIL, only to be undercut by Ankara’s denial hours later; that followed a much-criticized performance describing former Taliban captive Bowe Bergdahl’s Army service as “honorable” despite the murky circumstances of his disappearance and capture; and her now-infamous explanation of the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, after which she was blasted by Republicans for appearing to play down terrorism links.)

"There is a sense that the NSC is run a little like beehive ball soccer, where everyone storms to wherever the ball is moving around the field,” according to another recently departed senior administration official. “They are managing by crisis rather than strategy.… It’s Syria one day, Iraq the next, North Korea the next, and so on. The NSC is finding multitasking very hard these days.

According to the federal government’s 2014 personnel survey, civilian defense employees have grown increasingly dissatisfied with their jobs, with ratings dropping in 47 of 84 categories from last year. And the larger question is whether Hagel’s mostly inward focus on budget and morale issues at the Pentagon is the right focus now—instead of helping to project American power abroad amidst spiraling global crises.

But what might be missing most from the administration—at least according to its critics—is a forceful strategist who is able to push the president (who remains, for the most part, his own No. 1 strategist) to be more decisive.

Of course, no one knows Obama’s thinking on national security better than Rice, who has been with him longer than any senior official in the administration with the exception of McDonough, his chief of staff. And as we’ve discovered during six-plus years of studying Obama’s MO, that counts for a lot with this president. Keeping America out of any more disastrous wars is his mission, and it may well be that his allegedly bumbling team is doing nothing more than implementing his desires. Whether that is any longer a policy appropriate to the times, given the resilience of ISIL—and whether he’s getting the kind of advice he needs to hear, rather than the kind he wants to hear—is another question, one for the pundits to debate.

But as one former senior Pentagon official puts it, “When you select for personal loyalty, that may be all you get.”

Restoring The Dream 2014: Message to black voters

Restoring The Dream 2014: Message to black voters

To many on the left, it came as surprise that a conservative Tea Party organization launched the most ambitious effort in anyone's memory to engage and educate minority community on just how they have been duped by the so called progressive left into thinking that only government could answer their problems.

TheTeaParty.net along with the Dr. Alveda King, the Congress of Racial Equality and several others knew that "Restore the Dream 2014" was critical to our efforts to turn America back to our founding principles of liberty and personal responsibility. Friday, we were in Ferguson, Missouri, were we were joined by hundreds of residents and community leaders.

Our message is simple. Stop listening to the lies of President Obama, Jessie Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton. They want the minority community to believe that by keeping them rich and in power, they will provide a few scraps in the way of handouts to buy a vote. The harm done to the black community, and minorities in general has devastated communities and left individuals believing there is no other hope.

Restore the Dream 2014 is changing that and the left is having a fit. They see it as a turf war with "how dare you invade our voting block and start telling the truth" Well, the truth must be told and it is long overdue. The Democrats have never been the champions of civil rights yet they somehow managed to take the work of Republicans and make people believe it was their doing when they knew they were defeated.
 

Help Restore the Dream and offer a vision forward for all Americans. This is what the Tea Party was born to do and is not going to let anything stand in the way. Your support is what will decide how far and  how fast we can move forward.